In the matter of Barbara (Care order) [2015] JRC 082 (27 April 2015)

In the matter of Barbara (Care order) [2015] JRC 082 (27 April 2015)

The Court found that the threshold criteria for intervention were met due to the parents' inability to provide safe and consistent care, but determined that the option of placement with Mr and Mrs E had not been fully and fairly explored. The criticisms of Mr and Mrs E were found to be exaggerated or not determinative, and the contact arrangements undermined their ability to establish themselves as primary carers. Therefore, the Court was not satisfied that adoption was the only option and adjourned the Minister's application to allow further assessment of Mr and Mrs E as potential carers.

Citation
[2015] JRC 082
Parties
Applicant: Minister; Subject: Barbara (the child); First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Father; Intervenors: Mr and Mrs E
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
27 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Care and Adoption Proceedings / Final Judgment After Four Day Hearing
Outcome
Minister's application for freeing the child for adoption adjourned; further assessment of Mr and Mrs E as carers ordered.
Legal Topics
Adoption, Care Orders, Connected Persons Assessment, Child Welfare, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Protection Adoption Care Orders Connected Persons Assessment Child Welfare Parental Responsibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister

Applicant

Barbara (the child)

Subject

Mother

First Respondent

Father

Second Respondent

Mr and Mrs E

Intervenors

Procedural Posture

Care and Adoption Proceedings / Final Judgment After Four Day Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child should be freed for adoption or placed within the family
  2. 2 Whether the possibility of care by Mr and Mrs E was fully and fairly explored
  3. 3 Whether the threshold criteria under Article 24(2) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 was met

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the threshold criteria for intervention were met due to the parents' inability to provide safe and consistent care, but determined that the option of placement with Mr and Mrs E had not been fully and fairly explored. The criticisms of Mr and Mrs E were found to be exaggerated or not determinative, and the contact arrangements undermined their ability to establish themselves as primary carers. Therefore, the Court was not satisfied that adoption was the only option and adjourned the Minister's application to allow further assessment of Mr and Mrs E as potential carers.

Court Disposition

Minister's application for freeing the child for adoption adjourned; further assessment of Mr and Mrs E as carers ordered.

Orders

  • Adjournment of the Minister's application for freeing the child for adoption.
  • Direction for further assessment of Mr and Mrs E as potential long-term carers for the child.